Newspaper: H-Bombs And Cities; Newspaper Article (POSS. Washington Post)

’ tj ■•'{/. : • , ' • ? ' • - .

H-Bombs And Cities

Some readers have objected to the 'statement in our
editorial of yesterday that “defense against the H-bomb
is not only possible but practicable.” The assertion
7. was, we agree, an oversimplification. Two great
dangers confront public policy in the hydrogen-bomb
age — especially in light of Malenkov’s announcement
of a Soviet H-bomb explosion. One is to underestimate
the devastation that would be caused by an H-bomb
attack. The other is to assume that the problem is so
immense that nothing whatever can be done about it
except wring one’s hands and shrug it off.

As respects the impact of an H-bomb attack, it is
only necessary to recall the words of Project East
River that “100 aircraft can now carry a total destruc-
tive potential equivalent to the total bombing effort
of the British and United States air forces throughout
all of World War II.” That statement is, if anything,
conservative. Moreover, as Dr. Ralplh Lapp has pointed
out, half the American people live in the 100 metro-
politan areas that would be the most likely targets
for H-bomb or atom-bomb attack.

Even under optimum conditions, short-run defense
against this kind of attack would be precarious. For
example, civil defense authorities are now debating
the alternative between the construction of bomb
shelters and complete evacuation of cities. Shelters
are convenient, but they are costly, and whether they
would be real protection would depend upon where
the bombs hit as well as whether an all-suffocating
fire-storm followed a nuclear weapon attack. Evacua-
tion of cities, of course, would cause industrial paraly-
sis, not to mention the greatest traffic jam in history.

On the other hand, it is possible, through a combi-
nation of an improved early warning system and
orderly civil defense planning and training, to save ,
millions of lives that might otherwise be sacrificed in
an attack. It is possible to build a better air defense,
though at great cost and with no assurance that it
would be foolproof. It also is possible, over a period
of years, to disperse new industrial plants and •
lessen the density of cities so as to make them less
attractive targets.

Obviously the only really satisfactory solution to
the problem raised by the H-bomb lies in the realm
of international policy — that is, international control
with rigid inspection and, if possible, some measure of
disarmament. That ought to be the objective of a
major and continuing effort by the Administration.
Until such a solution is possible, however, it is urgent
to accelerate air defense and civil defense precautions.

It is essential in this connection to avoid what Project
East River calls the universal and typical reaction —

“a feeling of being overwhelmed by the sheer magni-
tude of a problem so large, so complex and so seem-
ingly impossible of adequate and practical solution”

The point is, however, that as of now the Adminis-
tration is doing nothing on any of these fronts — to
pose the international problem, to improve air defense
or to grapple realistically wijh civil defense. That is
why it is so crucially important for the public to have
full and frank .information to evaluate the alternatives
that lie ahead. For this is one genie that cannot be
put baclcin thChsttltand that. continues to grow while?
it is ignored.